beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 27, 2017 to February 7, 2018.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased KRW 40 million to the Defendant, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff of which, on September 14, 2009, KRW 10 million, around November 23, 2009, KRW 20 million around November 23, 2009, KRW 10 million around March 15, 2010, and KRW 40 million around March 15, 201, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 40 million and delay damages therefrom.
B. The Defendant’s assertion did not receive KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on September 14, 2009, and there was an amount of KRW 23,00 million on November 23, 2009, and KRW 30 million on March 15, 2010, which was paid to the Defendant. However, it was merely a donation by a mother-child C borrowed from the Plaintiff and made a donation to the Defendant, or made a donation by using the Plaintiff’s passbook. The Defendant did not borrow from the Plaintiff.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the fact that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant the sum of KRW 20 million on Nov. 23, 2009, KRW 10 million on Mar. 15, 2010, KRW 30 million on March 15, 2010, and the plaintiff sent the defendant on March 5, 2017, "if money is not settled by 12 days, it shall be hurd with the defendant's house" to the defendant on Mar. 5, 2017, the defendant sent the Kakakao Kao Stockholm text message to the defendant on March 12, 2017, "it is safe to grant additional loans by using the limit to the existing loans at a canter," and "I want to pay off the message "I want to you know about how you have a good body-friendly mother's long distance of learning", and "I want to pay off the message."
In light of this, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant a total of KRW 30 million on Nov. 23, 2009, and KRW 10 million on Mar. 15, 2010, to the Defendant. The entries in the evidence No. 1 alone are insufficient to reverse the recognition.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant on September 14, 2009 only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5-1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, there is no reason for the part exceeding the above scope of recognition among the plaintiff's above assertion.
Therefore, the defendant's above loan amount is KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.